Capital gains is different to dividends. Taxing corporations, and then taxing stock dividends is a double tax. Capital gains is about the company value increasing, which is not taxed at all.
The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.
You post is so funny. There is no point arguing with you about it, but spasmotic fits of laughter are oppropriate.
Politics is more about sides then ideas. If it were about ideas, then Republicans wouldn't take such an untennable position on this issue.
"Class warfare" and "job creators" are thought terminating cliches, along with "death taxes" and "socialism". These are all actually complex issues, far to complex to talk about in typical political discourse.
Take the doctrine of "Backlash". Women don't eschew the label feminist because of misandry, but rather because they have been indoctrinated into misogeny.
Take the label "biological essentialist". This thought terminating cliche is attached to anybody who talks about non-zero biological influences in behaviour. The labeller (social constructionist) is revealling themselves to be an "environmental essentialist".
None of this can ever be challenged, because you would be subordianting women, or displaying your ignorance. After-all, you are talking to someone who has a "raised consciousness", and you are still living within the cognitive prison of the culture in which you were raised.
I personally feel he is in over my head but the opposition is competent but very extreme and can do serious damage because they hold ideology above all else. What a mess. I just may not vote next year.
The irony of this, is that conservatism is *not* supposed to be about belief and ideology, but about the status quo, and organic sensible change. The current political right represents truly dramatic progressive politics -- they really want to shake things up. That is what liberalism is supposed be about: we can use policy to change the country. Conservatism is meant to resist change. After-all, you don't know what you don't know, and liberals can be really arrogant about their wide-eyed ideas.
My how times have changed.
I read a very insightful long essay (short book) on the future of conservatism, that points to the Thatcher/Reagan era as the time when the political right started to embrace progressive politics. The Tea Party have taken that to a truly astounding level of ideological fanaticism. I liked it when conservatives didn't believe in stuff so strongly, and were more interested in a grounded understanding of the problems facing society.
The risk-reward equation is much simpler when there isn't an emotional factor.
There often is an emotional factor that goes something like "Fuck this guy", or "lets screw over these people, because maybe I will get a thrill". The emotional systems of psychopaths are well geared towards power, money and sometimes sex. They can be well practiced bullies, that know exactly how to destroy someone.
Would you trust the risk-reward equation of someone who genuinely didn't give a shit about human suffering?
Interesting that you just think you know this, even though the statistical rate of psychopaths is 1-4% for men.
Every human being should do themselves a favour and watch Kathryn Shultz's TED lecture on being wrong.
As for/needing/ to be a marginal psychopath to run a company -- this suggests that you really don't know what a psychopath is. A psychopath is a mimic that cheats on the social programming on regular people. Thinking that psychopaths have a place in society is like think that pedophiles have a place in society. It is a dangerous pathology.
Perhaps you need to be a marginal pedophile to be a priest?
Look no further then social constructionist for liberal "consciousness raised" moralistic, busy-body, self-defeating madness. This includes things like the war on violence in the media, which I wrote an essay on, or anything in the nature-nurture debate, which includes the feminist war on boys. (See Susan Pinker's The Sexual Paradox, or Christina Sommers' Who Stole Feminism.
When you start studying the political left under a critical eye, you will see all sorts of bizarre ignorance, which is protected with the same bloody-mindedness that we see from the far Right.
It is very common in the shallow end of the US right wing gene pool.
It is very common on all ends of the political spectrum. The shallow end of the US right-wing is probably worse, but don't fool yourself that liberals are saints. They often have equal and opposite ideological blind-spots, and engage in the same type of mirror image projections. (What you called reversible arguments.)
Radical liberals are just plain paranoid nutcases, and should be put on an island with dominionists christians, tea partiers, climate change deniers, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, racists, radical social constructionists, and all the busy-body moralists who think they need to protect the ignorant masses by shouting at them. We are talking about 20% of the population, and by my guess, republicans would only outnumber democrats by 1 or 2%.
I believe what you are talking about is called a mirror image projection. You see, we project on others all the time. Everyone does it. It is part of standard mundane human madness. So when someone disagrees with you, it is because they don't listen. The mind actually contrives to make you unaware that you are not the one listening.
Now you have two people saying that each doesn't listen to each other.
When someone is in denial -- ie: all of us -- we will project our ignorance onto those who try to confront us about what we refuse to see or do. With narcissism (a rough the technical term for an asshole or bully), they almost always cause problems, and then blame them on other people. This drives everyone nuts -- hence the label, asshole.
Since narcissists (like everyone else) are in denial about their behaviour, they always accuse everyone else of exactly what they are doing. So they see themselves as the victim (even though they are the bully), or the person who listens to others (even though people are afraid to tell them anything).
Your test would not distinguish a narcissist from a psychopath, who has different cognitive deficits. Psychopaths can read the emotions of others, but the only emotion that is internally working is the drive for money, power, and sometimes sex. They honestly have no heart or moral scruples (to greater or lesser degrees).
They generally have superior intelligence, flat emotion, are perfect liers, superficially charming, and *extremely* difficult to spot. The standard test involves digging around in the subjects past, since you cannot believe a word that they say, or trust what their current "social circle" has to say about them.
I would assume the null hypothesis would be "climate will continue to change as it always has (i.e., AGW is a minor factor compared to others) with no greater or less frequency of catastrophe for humankind". It would be incumbent on anyone proposing a truly scientific theory of CAGW to show a falsifiable hypothesis statement that would indict AGW as a primary driver of climate (rather than just one of many equals, or one of the minor ones), as well as quantify and predict "catastrophe" in specific values/timescales.
Your "hypothesis" is acceptable. (It really has nothing do with null-hypothesis significance testing. If you can accept that, then short-circuit the comments below.)
Note that is has/already/ been shown significant potentially very dangerous changes will occur from human activity.
How about this, name 5 "substantial" theories, and we'll talk about what their formal falsifications are.
Okay, if we cannot agree on the above, then give me a/single/ (no matter how elaborate) falsification/hypothesis/ for:
Quantumn mechanics standard model
Evolution
Genetic basis of behaviour
Generative grammar
General relativity
Remember, we want a/single/ hypothesis that can be empirically measured, no matter how complex. If the null hypothesis is accepted, then we throw out all the textbooks with the theory in it. (Leave aside that science doesn't fit within NHST.)
The interesting part about that kind of stuff is that we *do* end up falsifying specific models of physics, in pursuit of a true one.
From a naive point of view, they are all already falsified.
The problem with computerized climate models
We're talking about theories, not models.
btw, your coment about comparing the volume of insect CO2 emissions to burning fossil fuels is a good example of junk science. Can you think why?
The only caveat there is timescale, of course.
Insects evolved in equilibrium with flaura, and make part of a dynamic system that produces and consumes CO2 on an scale that is an order of magnitude beyond human activity. Note that if an insect doesn't consume a tree, then that bound CO2 will be released back to the atmosphere by another mechanism. (e.g.: the tree dies and rots.) You probably cannot reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations by planting forests.
The mistake is thinking of insects as separate from the plants from which they derive the complex carbon molecules that are burnt into CO2.
This is not the same for human activity. I don't want to get down this ally too far (we can return to it), but if it can be shown that CO2 has substantially increased in the last 100 years (which some people deny), and by at least two lines of evidence it can be shown that that CO2 is from human activity (which some people deny)... wounldn't comparing that to part of a natural system in equilibrium be a little bit dishonest?
I can not think of any reason why the AGW hypothesis is a red herring.
Even with those three stipulations (or a modified 3rd stipulation if you wish), that seems to be *necessary* to a theory of CAGW (or a more robust specification of AGW magnitude), but not sufficient.
Correct.
I welcome you to present one [a falsification hypothesis], as complex as it may be.... CAGW being falsifiable or not depends on the specific falsifiable hypothesis statement being presented.
This is wrong. There is no single (as you put it) formal CAGW formulation with a null hypothesis. Thinking that there should be is what Popper called "naive falsification", and is the type of argument that intelligent designers make about evolution. There is no such formal formulation for/any/ substantial scientific theory. I defy you to find a single example for a substantial theory. Obviously such a hypothesis has nothing to do with the scientific method.
To find some agreement here, we could say that the CAGW theory must be couched in testable ideas. No/single/ test on a/single/ idea will disprove the theory.
Think of symmetry: it is broken, then fixed (we find the neutrino), then broken again, etc. Today, most physicists believe that symmetry is probably true even though it is currently broken. Where's your single falsibility hypothesis there?
btw, your coment about comparing the volume of insect CO2 emissions to burning fossil fuels is a good example of junk science. Can you think why?
Human instinct is the reason why drugs are "banned". Same goes for trying to control the sexuality of others (homosexuality, promiscuity, sexuality of women). We are programmed (by nature) to try and control the behaviour in others when it hits our internal "prude" instinct. It is an externalised form of self-aggression called moralism.
Beware the moralist -- they will control you for your own good, because they have the "insight" into your predicament, and are doing it for your own good. All the carnage they wreak is for "the greater good", and if they didn't defend society it would descend into hell.
There are moralists on the political left and right, and they each of their axes to grind, and they are both completly deluding themselves. Much of the worlds suffering would be reduced if moralists learnt how to deal with their own turff, instead of trying to mandate behaviour for others. The violence in mexico is just one consequence of moralism, and proof that evil can come from the good intentions of the ignorant.
Note, most moralists think of themselves as having "raised" consciousness. This is just one way that they make themselves impervious to the messages of the world.
IGW is true -- big deal. There are many people who deny AGW as being even trivially true. Even that CO2 has any warming significant impact at all! After-all, according to some, we're about to head into a cooling phase for 30 years!
So we have to establish that first the world *is* warming (which some of your friends deny), and that humans play some role in that (which some of your friends deny).
The 1979 NAS report is called the Charney report. At least read the preface, summary and conclusions. Note that 30 years ago there was consensus on the sensitivity of the climate system to a doubling of CO2.
My assertion is that proponents of CAGW will (and have) continually make ad hoc special pleadings when observations do not match their assertions.
While this is no doubt the case, it does not follow, therefore, that CAGW is unfalsifiable. There are specific predictions of required CO2 sensitivity, and measurable consequences, such as rising sea levels.
Forget the fact (for the moment), that there are people who ideologically hate lazzie-faire capitalism, or have other disabilities regarding entrenched world views. That is a/separate/ issue to whether CAGW is falsifiable or not. Agreed?
AGW is true even if there is a small impact from CO2. It could mean that although there is warming, there is nothing to worry about in terms of risk management. Remember, AGW is a different hypothesis to CAGW. Both are falsifiable, although CAGW is orders of magnitude more complex, since one must make predictions on the magnitude of warming, and its consequences.
Your fact is correct.
AGW =/Anthropogenic/ global warming. We did it. Not that it is particularly a problem. We knew this for sure in 1979, according to the definitive NAS literature review of that year.
Was the NAS wrong about AGW? Did all those famous inter-disciplinary scientists somehow not notice that AGW is not a scientific theory, in the same way that the emaculate conception of the virgin Mary is not a scientific theory?
1) I am saying that AGW is *technically* falsifiable, since it makes predictions that can be empirically tested. Testing those predictions and interpreting the results in another question (which we cannot get to yet.)
2) The answer to you question is in understanding "naive falsification", which I expect a lot of resistence from you on. There is no single hypothesis that falsifies Quantumn Mechanics (QM) on its own. You cannot find any single "falsification hypothesis" for any scientific theory -- expect perhaps a few micky mouse examples.
So let's see if we can agree on 1) before we get to 2). Trying to treat them at the same time is *exactly* the type of cognitive mechanism that keeps denial going. Remember you denialists will always/shift/ the topic as soon as they are on shaky ground.
Fact: AGW is falsifiable because it makes empirically testable predictions. FULL STOP. We can get to the rest when we agree on that.
Well, now that you've accepted that AGW (and related) are falsifiable -- explain to me where in any recent established philosophy of science (Popper or beyond), one actually makes a falsification hypothesis? Can you give specific examples?
I mean, the philosophy of science makes a stark distinction between falsification and naive falsification (which is a technical term).
I understand your point, but it is also beside the point. You said AGW is not falsifiable, but it simply is. There are physical experiments that you can do, whose results would dismantle the theoretical framework. Therefore AGW is falsifiable.
Proving the case for AGW or CAGW (which involves risk management), is simply a different problem. Popper was talking about _falsifiability_, and both AGW and CAGW simply are.
As is so typical in discussions like this, instead of back-tracking and saying, "Oh yes, I see, AGW *is* falsifiable", you have tried to change the context of the discussion. This is precisely what you must not do. It should be obvious for you why.
Radiative forcing of CO2 is 0 implies AGW is false.
Remember, we are talking about falsifiability. Popper was not provability.
When it comes to proving the case, then you have to set out your arguments. But we are arguing about falsifiability. Don't divert the issue. That is exactly what people in denial do. You said that AGW is not falsifiable, but you are simply wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Capital gains is different to dividends. Taxing corporations, and then taxing stock dividends is a double tax. Capital gains is about the company value increasing, which is not taxed at all.
The term you are looking for is: thought terminating cliche.
Lifton writes:
The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.
Tax wealth not income
Sounds to me like you want to see a return of the estate tax (aka, death tax).
People building businesses don't stop working because they are paying higher marginal tax rates.
You post is so funny. There is no point arguing with you about it, but spasmotic fits of laughter are oppropriate.
Politics is more about sides then ideas. If it were about ideas, then Republicans wouldn't take such an untennable position on this issue.
"Class warfare" and "job creators" are thought terminating cliches, along with "death taxes" and "socialism". These are all actually complex issues, far to complex to talk about in typical political discourse.
Congratulations of being part of the problem!
Take the doctrine of "Backlash". Women don't eschew the label feminist because of misandry, but rather because they have been indoctrinated into misogeny.
Take the label "biological essentialist". This thought terminating cliche is attached to anybody who talks about non-zero biological influences in behaviour. The labeller (social constructionist) is revealling themselves to be an "environmental essentialist".
None of this can ever be challenged, because you would be subordianting women, or displaying your ignorance. After-all, you are talking to someone who has a "raised consciousness", and you are still living within the cognitive prison of the culture in which you were raised.
I personally feel he is in over my head but the opposition is competent but very extreme and can do serious damage because they hold ideology above all else. What a mess. I just may not vote next year.
The irony of this, is that conservatism is *not* supposed to be about belief and ideology, but about the status quo, and organic sensible change. The current political right represents truly dramatic progressive politics -- they really want to shake things up. That is what liberalism is supposed be about: we can use policy to change the country. Conservatism is meant to resist change. After-all, you don't know what you don't know, and liberals can be really arrogant about their wide-eyed ideas.
My how times have changed.
I read a very insightful long essay (short book) on the future of conservatism, that points to the Thatcher/Reagan era as the time when the political right started to embrace progressive politics. The Tea Party have taken that to a truly astounding level of ideological fanaticism. I liked it when conservatives didn't believe in stuff so strongly, and were more interested in a grounded understanding of the problems facing society.
The risk-reward equation is much simpler when there isn't an emotional factor.
There often is an emotional factor that goes something like "Fuck this guy", or "lets screw over these people, because maybe I will get a thrill". The emotional systems of psychopaths are well geared towards power, money and sometimes sex. They can be well practiced bullies, that know exactly how to destroy someone.
Would you trust the risk-reward equation of someone who genuinely didn't give a shit about human suffering?
Junk
Interesting that you just think you know this, even though the statistical rate of psychopaths is 1-4% for men.
/needing/ to be a marginal psychopath to run a company -- this suggests that you really don't know what a psychopath is. A psychopath is a mimic that cheats on the social programming on regular people. Thinking that psychopaths have a place in society is like think that pedophiles have a place in society. It is a dangerous pathology.
Every human being should do themselves a favour and watch Kathryn Shultz's TED lecture on being wrong.
As for
Perhaps you need to be a marginal pedophile to be a priest?
Look no further then social constructionist for liberal "consciousness raised" moralistic, busy-body, self-defeating madness. This includes things like the war on violence in the media, which I wrote an essay on, or anything in the nature-nurture debate, which includes the feminist war on boys. (See Susan Pinker's The Sexual Paradox, or Christina Sommers' Who Stole Feminism.
When you start studying the political left under a critical eye, you will see all sorts of bizarre ignorance, which is protected with the same bloody-mindedness that we see from the far Right.
It is very common in the shallow end of the US right wing gene pool.
It is very common on all ends of the political spectrum. The shallow end of the US right-wing is probably worse, but don't fool yourself that liberals are saints. They often have equal and opposite ideological blind-spots, and engage in the same type of mirror image projections. (What you called reversible arguments.)
Radical liberals are just plain paranoid nutcases, and should be put on an island with dominionists christians, tea partiers, climate change deniers, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, racists, radical social constructionists, and all the busy-body moralists who think they need to protect the ignorant masses by shouting at them. We are talking about 20% of the population, and by my guess, republicans would only outnumber democrats by 1 or 2%.
and try looking for a reversible argument.
I believe what you are talking about is called a mirror image projection. You see, we project on others all the time. Everyone does it. It is part of standard mundane human madness. So when someone disagrees with you, it is because they don't listen. The mind actually contrives to make you unaware that you are not the one listening.
Now you have two people saying that each doesn't listen to each other.
When someone is in denial -- ie: all of us -- we will project our ignorance onto those who try to confront us about what we refuse to see or do. With narcissism (a rough the technical term for an asshole or bully), they almost always cause problems, and then blame them on other people. This drives everyone nuts -- hence the label, asshole.
Since narcissists (like everyone else) are in denial about their behaviour, they always accuse everyone else of exactly what they are doing. So they see themselves as the victim (even though they are the bully), or the person who listens to others (even though people are afraid to tell them anything).
Your test would not distinguish a narcissist from a psychopath, who has different cognitive deficits. Psychopaths can read the emotions of others, but the only emotion that is internally working is the drive for money, power, and sometimes sex. They honestly have no heart or moral scruples (to greater or lesser degrees).
They generally have superior intelligence, flat emotion, are perfect liers, superficially charming, and *extremely* difficult to spot. The standard test involves digging around in the subjects past, since you cannot believe a word that they say, or trust what their current "social circle" has to say about them.
I would assume the null hypothesis would be "climate will continue to change as it always has (i.e., AGW is a minor factor compared to others) with no greater or less frequency of catastrophe for humankind". It would be incumbent on anyone proposing a truly scientific theory of CAGW to show a falsifiable hypothesis statement that would indict AGW as a primary driver of climate (rather than just one of many equals, or one of the minor ones), as well as quantify and predict "catastrophe" in specific values/timescales.
Your "hypothesis" is acceptable. (It really has nothing do with null-hypothesis significance testing. If you can accept that, then short-circuit the comments below.)
/already/ been shown significant potentially very dangerous changes will occur from human activity.
Note that is has
How about this, name 5 "substantial" theories, and we'll talk about what their formal falsifications are.
Okay, if we cannot agree on the above, then give me a /single/ (no matter how elaborate) falsification /hypothesis/ for:
Remember, we want a /single/ hypothesis that can be empirically measured, no matter how complex. If the null hypothesis is accepted, then we throw out all the textbooks with the theory in it. (Leave aside that science doesn't fit within NHST.)
The interesting part about that kind of stuff is that we *do* end up falsifying specific models of physics, in pursuit of a true one.
From a naive point of view, they are all already falsified.
The problem with computerized climate models
We're talking about theories, not models.
btw, your coment about comparing the volume of insect CO2 emissions to burning fossil fuels is a good example of junk science. Can you think why?
The only caveat there is timescale, of course.
Insects evolved in equilibrium with flaura, and make part of a dynamic system that produces and consumes CO2 on an scale that is an order of magnitude beyond human activity. Note that if an insect doesn't consume a tree, then that bound CO2 will be released back to the atmosphere by another mechanism. (e.g.: the tree dies and rots.) You probably cannot reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations by planting forests.
The mistake is thinking of insects as separate from the plants from which they derive the complex carbon molecules that are burnt into CO2.
This is not the same for human activity. I don't want to get down this ally too far (we can return to it), but if it can be shown that CO2 has substantially increased in the last 100 years (which some people deny), and by at least two lines of evidence it can be shown that that CO2 is from human activity (which some people deny)... wounldn't comparing that to part of a natural system in equilibrium be a little bit dishonest?
I can not think of any reason why the AGW hypothesis is a red herring.
Even with those three stipulations (or a modified 3rd stipulation if you wish), that seems to be *necessary* to a theory of CAGW (or a more robust specification of AGW magnitude), but not sufficient.
Correct.
I welcome you to present one [a falsification hypothesis], as complex as it may be. ... CAGW being falsifiable or not depends on the specific falsifiable hypothesis statement being presented.
This is wrong. There is no single (as you put it) formal CAGW formulation with a null hypothesis. Thinking that there should be is what Popper called "naive falsification", and is the type of argument that intelligent designers make about evolution. There is no such formal formulation for /any/ substantial scientific theory. I defy you to find a single example for a substantial theory. Obviously such a hypothesis has nothing to do with the scientific method.
/single/ test on a /single/ idea will disprove the theory.
To find some agreement here, we could say that the CAGW theory must be couched in testable ideas. No
Think of symmetry: it is broken, then fixed (we find the neutrino), then broken again, etc. Today, most physicists believe that symmetry is probably true even though it is currently broken. Where's your single falsibility hypothesis there?
btw, your coment about comparing the volume of insect CO2 emissions to burning fossil fuels is a good example of junk science. Can you think why?
Human instinct is the reason why drugs are "banned". Same goes for trying to control the sexuality of others (homosexuality, promiscuity, sexuality of women). We are programmed (by nature) to try and control the behaviour in others when it hits our internal "prude" instinct. It is an externalised form of self-aggression called moralism.
Beware the moralist -- they will control you for your own good, because they have the "insight" into your predicament, and are doing it for your own good. All the carnage they wreak is for "the greater good", and if they didn't defend society it would descend into hell.
There are moralists on the political left and right, and they each of their axes to grind, and they are both completly deluding themselves. Much of the worlds suffering would be reduced if moralists learnt how to deal with their own turff, instead of trying to mandate behaviour for others. The violence in mexico is just one consequence of moralism, and proof that evil can come from the good intentions of the ignorant.
Note, most moralists think of themselves as having "raised" consciousness. This is just one way that they make themselves impervious to the messages of the world.
So we have to establish that first the world *is* warming (which some of your friends deny), and that humans play some role in that (which some of your friends deny).
The 1979 NAS report is called the Charney report. At least read the preface, summary and conclusions. Note that 30 years ago there was consensus on the sensitivity of the climate system to a doubling of CO2.
My assertion is that proponents of CAGW will (and have) continually make ad hoc special pleadings when observations do not match their assertions.
While this is no doubt the case, it does not follow, therefore, that CAGW is unfalsifiable. There are specific predictions of required CO2 sensitivity, and measurable consequences, such as rising sea levels.
/separate/ issue to whether CAGW is falsifiable or not. Agreed?
Forget the fact (for the moment), that there are people who ideologically hate lazzie-faire capitalism, or have other disabilities regarding entrenched world views. That is a
AGW is true even if there is a small impact from CO2. It could mean that although there is warming, there is nothing to worry about in terms of risk management. Remember, AGW is a different hypothesis to CAGW. Both are falsifiable, although CAGW is orders of magnitude more complex, since one must make predictions on the magnitude of warming, and its consequences.
/Anthropogenic/ global warming. We did it. Not that it is particularly a problem. We knew this for sure in 1979, according to the definitive NAS literature review of that year.
Your fact is correct.
AGW =
Was the NAS wrong about AGW? Did all those famous inter-disciplinary scientists somehow not notice that AGW is not a scientific theory, in the same way that the emaculate conception of the virgin Mary is not a scientific theory?
1) I am saying that AGW is *technically* falsifiable, since it makes predictions that can be empirically tested. Testing those predictions and interpreting the results in another question (which we cannot get to yet.)
/shift/ the topic as soon as they are on shaky ground.
2) The answer to you question is in understanding "naive falsification", which I expect a lot of resistence from you on. There is no single hypothesis that falsifies Quantumn Mechanics (QM) on its own. You cannot find any single "falsification hypothesis" for any scientific theory -- expect perhaps a few micky mouse examples.
So let's see if we can agree on 1) before we get to 2). Trying to treat them at the same time is *exactly* the type of cognitive mechanism that keeps denial going. Remember you denialists will always
Fact: AGW is falsifiable because it makes empirically testable predictions. FULL STOP. We can get to the rest when we agree on that.
QM makes definite predictions and can be falsified.
That's what I am talking about. Replace QM with AGW. Do you agree?
Or are you going to say that AGW _doesn't_ make predictions that can be falsified?
Well, now that you've accepted that AGW (and related) are falsifiable -- explain to me where in any recent established philosophy of science (Popper or beyond), one actually makes a falsification hypothesis? Can you give specific examples?
I mean, the philosophy of science makes a stark distinction between falsification and naive falsification (which is a technical term).
So, you are implying that it doesn't matter how the money was obtained, just as long as Gore Jr. is rich. Great.
I am saying that he isn't an evil lier because he is rich, and owns stocks and property.
He's just a rich guy. Big deal.
If I was rich, I would probably own two properties, and have stocks in oil, and renewable energies as well.
This would be funny if it wasn't sad.
I understand your point, but it is also beside the point. You said AGW is not falsifiable, but it simply is. There are physical experiments that you can do, whose results would dismantle the theoretical framework. Therefore AGW is falsifiable.
Proving the case for AGW or CAGW (which involves risk management), is simply a different problem. Popper was talking about _falsifiability_, and both AGW and CAGW simply are.
As is so typical in discussions like this, instead of back-tracking and saying, "Oh yes, I see, AGW *is* falsifiable", you have tried to change the context of the discussion. This is precisely what you must not do. It should be obvious for you why.
Perhaps an analogy:
The immaculate conception of the virgin mary cannot be falsified.
AGW can be falsified -- for example, showing zero forcing for CO2.
That is DIFFERENT to saying that you can prove AGW with non-zero forcing of CO2.
Dude, I am not saying that zero forcing proves AGW, NOT AT ALL.
I am saying that zero forcing falsifies AGW, which is what falsifiability is about.
DENIAL can never be wrong, even on elementary details.
Radiative forcing of CO2 is 0 implies AGW is false.
Remember, we are talking about falsifiability. Popper was not provability.
When it comes to proving the case, then you have to set out your arguments. But we are arguing about falsifiability. Don't divert the issue. That is exactly what people in denial do. You said that AGW is not falsifiable, but you are simply wrong.